This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Instead of a rightwing fluff piece, I would go by an actual scientific study that shows not only that children with same sex parents do as well. They do BETTER.

But your logic is faulty. If studies show that children do better with same sex parents, does that mean that different-gender parents should not have children? Of course not.

If studies show that children do better with parents that have brown eyes do better than parents with blue eyes, does that mean that parents with blue eyes should not have children? Of course not.

But in this case, there is a dearth of studies on the subject, but a major recent one showed that children of same sex parents do better, across the board, than those of different-gender parents. Since you place a lot of stock in studies.

Which studies? From leftwing Universities or other LW organizations? Please...

Do they not teach reading and comprehending plain English documents where you went to school?

Rhetorical question.

You are telling us a law is unconstitutional, but you have never actually studied the law. If you did, you would understand what the Constitution is, what is intended to be, how the law works and works in conjuction with the Constitution and how prior court decisions actually shape the law and future interpretations of the law. You seem rather unqualified to make such an absolute has you have. It seems you are running with impression and not knowledge and understanding.

You do realize those the practice law hold the equivalent of a doctorate in the subject. Those appointed to the SOCTUS, not only hold a law degree, they usually hold a degree from one of the top schools in the US, and have years of experience distingushing themselves as judges and judges of Constitutional matters. It seems rather arrogant of you to simply state they are wrong.

Right. Like we're not dealing with a plain English document here. It's not some holy text that only the priests can bestow upon you. Educate yourself.

Oh, I am quite educated, thank you. If the Constitution were as painfully clear on issues as you seem to think, there'd be no need for a USSC. But, hey, if you want to think you know better than centuries of legal precedence and those who sit on the USSC...well, you're welcome to think so. What you think doesn't matter anyway, since it's all over and done with. Your side lost.

“The Bible has noble poetry in it... and some good morals and a wealth of obscenity, and upwards of a thousand lies.” ― Mark Twain

I read the opinion of the bare majority, and 1 of 4 of the dissents (I'll get to the other 3 here in a minute.) All of the arguments are extremely compelling on the issue of the 14th Amendment (Due Process and Equal Protection) vs. the rules of elected governance at the Federal Level vs. the State Level (with respect to Constitutional authorities.)

The majority opinion seems to make the most Constitutional sense of equal protections, but the dissent from Justice Roberts seems to make the most sense from a standpoint of "restrained conception of the judicial role" (p.3 of his dissent, and something I argued yesterday with the ACA decision) and "what constitutes marriage, or—more precisely—who decides what constitutes marriage?" (p.4)

It is a tough one, but I tend to side with the majority decision on this one. There is no Constitutional foundation for the idea of religious based discrimination. Once you define marriage in terms religion suggests, then the government applies any benefit to that you have discrimination against same sex couples looking for the same thing. The States made a major mistake allowing the appeals of religious institution to define marriage, and then see it applied on unequal terms.

------------

"Excluding same-sex couples from marriage thus conflicts with a central premise of the right to marry." (p.15 of the majority decision)

"Indeed, while the States are in general free to vary the benefits they confer on all married couples, they have throughout our history made marriage the basis for an expanding list of governmental rights, benefits, and responsibilities. These aspects of marital status include: taxation; inheritance and property rights; rules of intestate succession; spousal privilege in the law of evidence; hospital access; medical decision making authority; adoption rights; the rights and benefits of survivors; birth and death certificates; professional ethics rules; campaign finance restrictions; workers’ compensation benefits; health insurance; and child custody, support, and visitation rules."

"There is no difference between same- and opposite-sex couples with respect to this principle." (both on p.16-17)

"It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character"

"They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right." (both on p.28.)

"Every time something really bad happens, people cry out for safety, and the government answers by taking rights away from good people." - Penn Jillette.